and SNET. They were elected to promote decentralisation and the fact that they were not consulted before hand is a very valid argument. Either don’t preach decentralisation or follow the phase 2 WP.
In an ideal scenario all the details of the merger would have been discussed before hand and opened for community vote thereafter.
The voting portal being down is also a major problem and does not brew trust.
And Re SDAO wallet has this been fact checked ?
How is your paper doing?
voting portal will be sorted - its pretty late at night - lets not start accusing anything silly there SC were not consulted because this was a matter outside their perview - it is a shame that it couldnt have been another way, but it couldnt not sure if its been checked in terms of wallets - but again, if token holders can vote, token holders can vote - at least i believe so - you cant have it both ways
It’s not an accusation Jon it just not a good look I don’t think we have to debate that And about the SC, in that case the phase 2 WP needs a factory reset because it doesn’t represent the project currently. And going forward I think we need a separate vote on foundation wallets being able to engage with votes
fair time changes things - probably does need an update yea i think there is a disaprity here in team vs foundation wallets - im not arguing that the wallet holding the treasury tokens should be allowed to vote - but any team member should be - even trump can vote for himself 😉
Обсуждают сегодня